Alfieri v. Bertorelli, 295 Mich. App. 189

Plaintiffs purchased a condominium in a repurposed, contaminated former factory site where a vapor barrier was installed but decontamination was not completed.
Plaintiffs relied on a brochure and newspaper article indicating cleanup and made no independent environmental analysis.
Defendants, as sellers’ agents, allegedly misrepresented or failed to disclose environmental conditions and related concerns.
Trial court denied motions for summary disposition, directed verdict, and JNOV; jury found liability for silent fraud and negligent misrepresentation, with 35% comparative fault to plaintiffs on negligent misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding jury instructions; court affirmed judgments and rulings, including the comparative-negligence instruction.
Key issues include whether a duty to disclose existed for seller’s agents, whether reliance was reasonable, and whether jury instructions and comparative negligence rulings were appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to disclose by seller's agents	Alfieri argues agents owed a duty to disclose newly acquired information rendering prior statements misleading.	Greene/defendants contend no duty exists for seller's agents to disclose.	Duty exists; genuine fact dispute on disclosure duty.
Reasonableness of plaintiffs' reliance	Alfieri reasonably relied on the sales brochure, Greene's statements, and public sources indicating cleanup.	Reliance was unreasonable and plaintiffs should have conducted independent verification.	Reasonable reliance shown; denial of motions proper.
Jury instruction on comparative negligence	Instructing on comparative negligence was improper for negligent-misrepresentation not involving personal injury or property damage.	Instruction was appropriate under public-policy and apportionment principles.	Instruction appropriate; no error.
Imputed knowledge doctrine and separate analyses	Plaintiffs should have separate consideration of each plaintiff’s fault due to joint venture concerns.	Imputed knowledge applies; joint venture doctrine supports a single knowledge standard.	Imputed knowledge applicable; no error in not instructing separate fault analysis.

M&D, Inc v McConkey, 231 Mich App 22 (1998) (defines silent fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation elements)
Mable Cleary Trust v The Edward-Marlah Muzyl Trust, 262 Mich App 485 (2004) (duty may arise from buyer inquiries or recognized information)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Black, 412 Mich 99 (1981) (duty to disclose may arise when buyer has particular concerns)
Fejedelem v Kasco, 269 Mich App 499 (2006) (warning on reliance where plaintiff given information about financials)
Unibar Maintenance Servs, Inc v Saigh, 283 Mich App 609 (2009) (negligent misrepresentation requires duty of care and justifiable reliance)
McMullen v Joldersma, 174 Mich App 207 (1988) (noting seller's agents' duty distinctions and disclosure expectations)
Nat’l Sand, Inc v Nagel Constr, Inc, 182 Mich App 327 (1990) (limits on applying damages timing and limitations periods)
Local 1064, RWDSU AFL-CIO v Ernst & Young, 449 Mich 322 (1995) (animates modern interpretation of injuries to persons for comparative fault)
Duke v American Olean Tile Co, 155 Mich App 555 (1986) (applies comparative negligence in negligence actions)
Sweet v Shreve, 262 Mich 432 (1933) (limits considerations on which statute of limitations applies for fraud actions)
National Sand, Inc v Nagel Construction, Inc, 182 Mich App 327 (1990) (discusses limitations and injuries qualifying under comparative fault)